CET cooling in line with solar model prediction

Yesterday, WUWT carried the headline: Coldest Spring In England Since 1891.  This essay offers what could be an explanation for it. Judge for yourself. – Anthony

Guest essay by David Archibald

Back in 2006, I published my first paper in climate science. That paper, Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response, predicted a temperature decline of 1.5°C over Solar Cycle 24. The model has become a little more refined since then, and further updated by the papers of Jan-Erik Solheim, Ole Humlum and Kjell Stordahl. Given that Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, the average temperature of Armagh in Northern Ireland and the CET is modelled to be 1.4°C colder over Solar Cycle 24 than it was over Solar Cycle 23. The model is based on the theory of Friis-Christensen and Lassen in their 1991 paper.

We are now four and a half years into Solar Cycle 24. So how is the prediction holding up? That is shown in Figure 1 following:

archibald_CET_fig1

Figure 1: CET Average Temperatures 1990 – 2025

Over Solar Cycle 23 the average temperature of the CET was 10.4°C so the model predicts that the average over Solar Cycle 24 will be 9.0°C. For the first four years of Solar Cycle 24, it has averaged 9.8°C. For the prediction to hold from here, the average temperature over the remainder of the cycle will have to be 8.7°C. The average temperature of 2010 was 8.8°C – only 0.1°C more than what is needed from here. With solar maximum of Solar Cycle 24 now past us, the prediction is in the bag.

Thanks to Richard Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram we can also predict average temperature over Solar Cycle 25. Interpreting that diagram, Solar Cycle 24 will be at least 16 years long. In turn, that means that the CET over Solar Cycle 25 will be a further 1.4°C cooler than the average over Solar Cycle 24. The following graph shows what that looks like:

archibald_CET_fig2

Figure 2: CET Average Temperatures 1960 – 2037

The CET record is now 354 years long. Has something like that happened before? Yes it has. Figure 3 following shows the CET record from 1659 and puts our Solar Cycle 24 and 25 predictions in that context:

clip_image006

Figure 3: CET Average Temperature 1659 – 2037

Some individual years have had averages colder than our Solar Cycle 25 prediction. The eleven years centred on 1695 had an average temperature of 8.1°C. This cold period killed off 30% of the population of Finland. The cold period centered on 1740 affected Ireland badly, killing several hundred thousand people – 20% of the then population. The better known potato famine was one hundred years later. There was a major volcanic eruption in 1739, Tarumai in Japan, that would have contributed to the cooling over 1740. Volcanic effects last only a couple of years though. There seems to have been a regime change with temperatures after 1740 about 1.0°C colder than the years before it. This suggests a solar origin. In fact the high temperatures up to 1740 look similar to the high temperatures of the late 20th century.

Perhaps a solar regime change is in train once again. Livingstone and Penn forecast a maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 of 7 which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years. Figure 4 shows what that will look like:

clip_image008

Figure 4: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040

Despite what is happening to their climate, the UK is persisting with a project to convert their largest coal-fired power station, Drax in North Yorkshire, to burning woodchips to be imported from the United States. This is an attempt to placate the gods of climate at a capital cost for the conversion of £700 million ($1,070 million). This is laughable and very tragic at the same time. The whole circus will end in tears.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pochas
June 5, 2013 7:48 am

Could someone please explain how these “Green Corona” diagrams are interpreted? The slope of the “rush to the poles” line indicates the strength of the following cycle? Is that It?

pochas
June 5, 2013 7:55 am

David Archibald says:
June 4, 2013 at 9:06 pm
“Have a look at slide 13 on this presentation:
https://www2.hao.ucar.edu/sites/default/…/Synoptic-Observations_LS.ppt..”
The working link is:
https://www2.hao.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/users/whawkins/Synoptic-Observations_LS.pptx

Steve Hill from Ky
June 5, 2013 10:06 am

Interesting times…common sense says cooling or at least some type of change. 0.07 for May is headed lower. It appears that we peaked at +0.2 since 1979 and will be headed down in global temp. I would say that the Global warming people are going to appear foolish 5 years from now, they appear foolish to me already. I am suggesting a real learning period for Leif.

June 5, 2013 3:57 pm

Archibald’s 2008 US predictions revisited last year
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/archibald-2008-redux/

David Archibald
June 5, 2013 5:42 pm

tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:46 am
By now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long. Now let’s go back a couple of years to that conference in Sunspot, New Mexico. This is a press release on it:
http://earthsky.org/space/major-drop-in-solar-activity-ahead-scientists-say
Selfless solar scientists spend their lives living in the desert the better to observe solar activity. Let’s get a couple of quotes of what they said at that conference:
“This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.” and “If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
These eminent scientists have raised the possibility that there will be no Solar Cycle 25 at all. It would be good to know how things have progressed for the last two years.

June 5, 2013 11:48 pm

This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.
As calculated 10 years ago
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

June 6, 2013 5:06 am

David Archibald says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm
“By now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long.”
He asks, not states it as fact, but then, using the updated 2012 chart:
lsvalgaard says (here):
March 5, 2013 at 7:16 pm
“When updating the Figure with later data it is evident that there is no change in slope of the butterfly-wings of the green corona, so there is no justification for extrapolating to a very long cycle 24”: http://www.leif.org/research/Green-Corona-Altrock-Waldmeier.png
And what was your response to the updated green corona chart he pointed to?
David Archibald says:
March 5, 2013 at 11:22 pm
“Draw all the lines you like, it won’t make any difference. Let’s consult the oracle on the mountain, the mountain in question being Sacramento Peak. In his own words from:http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2401
Which in my opinion means complete ignoring of the updated 2012 chart and instead pointing back to the Altrock’s 2010 paper with the 2009 chart and looks to me being more a fascination with the (past) oracle on the mountain than a serious solar activity prediction bussiness.

June 6, 2013 6:50 am

William Astley says:
June 4, 2013 at 6:54 am
There is smoking gun evidence that solar magnetic cycle changes are the cause of the cyclic climate change (warm periods followed by cooling periods and the abrupt climate events).
No, there is not.
To be fair the naysayers, the recent abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle inhibited the GCR mechanism that modulates planetary cloud cover.
This is nonsense.
If the sun becomes spotless there will be another NASA solar update.
No, there will not. I am on the prediction panel.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 4, 2013 at 6:55 am
In the highly-politicized and even corrupt realm of climate “science”, that isn’t how funding works.
But that is how it works for funding of solar research.
David Archibald says:
June 4, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Well, some lead and others follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pieter_Bruegel_d._%C3%84._025.jpg
kuhnkat says:
June 5, 2013 at 8:35 am
Since you won’t tell us why it is just junk I need your prediction to have something to go on.
You have my professional opinion to go on.
We also do not have your need to support the Consensus.
What is your evidence that I support any consensus whatsoever?
David Archibald says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm
By now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long.
Never said that. And from 2009 to 2021 is not 17 years, but 12.

kuhnkat
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
June 6, 2013 12:36 pm

Leif replies:
“You have my professional opinion to go on.”
And that professional opinion is based on more fundamental observational data than what Archibald is using. Yes I understand that. What you apparently won’t admit is that your better observations still tell us NOTHING about the actual drivers of the solar cycles. YOUR Professional Opinion MAY be Better than his, but, it is still somewhat lacking as your OPINION is ALSO based on correlation of your limited observations.

kuhnkat
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
June 6, 2013 12:54 pm

Leif asks:
“What is your evidence that I support any consensus whatsoever?”
Only the fact that you are regularly defending consensus physics and have at least once ad homed a group based on confused or incomplete information about them.

June 6, 2013 7:03 am

David Archibald says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm
By now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long.
You misinterpret Altrock’s idea of the ‘extended’ solar cycle which is that cycles are not 11 years long, but 17 and they overlap such as to make the time between minima [or maxima] 11 years. That is: Every new cycle begins at the maximum of the previous cycle.

Martin Malahy
June 6, 2013 7:03 am

“Global warming!” is already done, replaced by “climate change!”.
The bloodstream of politics is constituted by perceived good intent, “We/I can and must do something about this particular problem!”. (Nothing is better for any political figure than saving the world.) So, while level-headed fact reveals a dynamic earth which operates independently from the effects of human population, just as it has for the previous thousand million years, governments will continue to “fix the man-made climate problem” for the reasonably large pricetag of money and authority, as needed.
As cooling (or lack of warming) becomes more apparent to the general population, a different problem of worldwide significance will be required. Overpopulation and disease have always had some success. Terrorism threats and nuclear catastrophe certainly have gained respect in the need for governmental control. Perhaps impending asteroid/comet impact, solar flares/CMEs, or cosmic rays, especially following the recent Russian meteorite experience, could provide the next worldwide problem. A second space event in the near future would be quite handy for that.
For now, however, there is still wriggle left in the climate change dragon.

June 6, 2013 12:45 pm

kuhnkat says:
June 6, 2013 at 12:36 pm
And that professional opinion is based on more fundamental observational data than what Archibald is using.
No. The problem with D.A. is not the data but the incorrect use of same as several commenters have already pointed out.

June 6, 2013 1:05 pm

kuhnkat says:
June 6, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Only the fact that you are regularly defending consensus physics
You are not really understanding science. When evidence for it becomes overwhelming most physicists will accept a theory; that is called ‘general acceptance’ or ‘current paradigm’ or ‘standard model’. This is what our advanced technological civilization is based on.
and have at least once ad homed a group based on confused or incomplete information about them
If a group of people issue confused information about themselves they run the risk of criticism. Many people do not understand the difference between saying that somebody’s idea is junk and that somebody is a jerk. Only the latter is ad-hom. I hope this helps in clarifying your mind about this.

kuhnkat
Reply to  lsvalgaard
June 6, 2013 1:18 pm

Leif say:
“When evidence for it becomes overwhelming most physicists will accept a theory; that is called ‘general acceptance’ or ‘current paradigm’ or ‘standard model’. This is what our advanced technological civilization is based on.”
Yes, this is the MYTHOLOGY of the Consensus.

June 6, 2013 1:28 pm

kuhnkat says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:18 pm
“This is what our advanced technological civilization is based on”
Yes, this is the MYTHOLOGY of the Consensus.

That you are not sitting in a cave banging stones together, but are using a computer run by electricity is a result of such ‘mythology’.
Consensus is what works. I do not ‘support’ consensus, I [and you] use it every day. Now, beware of people who claim they support a consensus, e.g. climate skeptics that are united in their consensus in general or in some of their specific ones, like ‘it is the Sun, stupid’. A self-proclaimed ‘consensus’ should not be confused with a ‘generally accepted standard model’.